Marriage is about creating a situation where the form is of child bearing. This
does not require each couple to have the potential in reality, just to have that
outward form. Man/woman as the standard is the way we create that form.

As marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman it fulfills its
purpose of creating a stable environment to raise children. We allow marriages
to dissolve for many reasons, but that does not mean we should allow things that
cannot ever be marriages.

The other troubling result of
Kennedy's ruling is that it will fuel refusals to grant any rights to those
who disagree with things other than man/woman marriage. By presenting them as
bigots it will justify denying them 1st amendment rights to chose how to speak,
and specifically chose not to lend their speech in support of ceremonies that
they object to.

I doubt that we'll get gay marriage in all 50 states within 5 years, but it
WILL come. Maybe 10 years.

I look forward to that day.

@John --

Once again, you continue to ignore the fact that gay
couples can raise children just as easily as any other infertile couples can.

Hundreds of thousands of children are ALREADY being raised by gay
couples, with or without marriage. Denying gay marriage to these couples
won't change that. But allowing gay marriage will HELP those kids, by
encouraging stable families.

"16,000 people die each year from AIDS in the US.
Most young men having sex with men (MSM). The media barely even covers
this."

If you are concerned about HIV, then you should SUPPORT
gay marriage. Marriage encourages STABLE, MONOGAMOUS relationships -- which
decrease the transmission of STDs.

@John --

"Marriage
is about creating a situation where the form is of child bearing. This does not
require each couple to have the potential in reality, just to have that outward
form."

Marriage isn't about "form", John -- marriage
is indeed about REALITY.

And the REALITY is that gay couples can
raise children just as easily as any other infertile couples.

Another
reality is that gay couples are ALREADY raising hundreds of thousands of
children -- with or without marriage. Denying gays the right to marry
wouldn't change that. So the issue of childrearing is a red herring.

The history of marriage shows that marriage used to be for
raising of children, but not for the idealistic reasons we apply to it.
Marriages were arranged for political/family reasons, and children were born as
labor to help the financial goals of the family. It's just been the past
few hundred years that marriages were for the romantic reasons of the couple.
Today, marriages are for companionship and not for rearing children. And,
marriage seems to be going out of style as more and more couples live together
without marriage.

Concerning gay marriages, I think the only
solution that will work is to remove government from marriages and let
government focus on civil rights through social unions. Marriage today is a
social function and should be regulated by social groups, churches being just
one of the social categories.

Government = civil unionsSocial
groups = marriage

Some people advocate that all marriages be civil
marriages regulated by government and that all persons be required to have civil
marriages. Then, persons choosing so could have ceremonies by the church or
social organization of their choice. This might work, although it would have
more government regulation than I would like.

All current Utah laws that reference the term "marriage" should be
changed to the term "heterosexual marriage." As a result, there will be
no claim of discrimination. Nothing to do in Utah, but try to pass
"homosexual marriage" laws, instead of piggybacking on decades of laws
that reference marriage.

The lies that people tell regarding the stability of homosexual relationships is
staggering. Plain and simple homosexuals want to be on the same playing field
as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, which they never will be. Studies
have shown that even in a committed relationship,male homosexuals will have 5 to
8 sexual partners a year. In "The Male Couple", authors David P.
McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in
homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:Only seven
couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have
been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a
relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for
outside sexual activity in their relationships. This study hardly spells a
wholesome environment to raise children that so many champions for this cause
are stating. What on earth are we doing here! Marriage between a man and a
woman has worked for thousands of years. Why are we wanting to define marriage
so differently from its origins?

3 of my 5 siblings have been divorced and are on
their 2nd marriage, a 4th is in the process of getting a divorce. My
heterosexual father had multiple affairs while married to my heterosexual
mother. I've worked with numerous heterosexuals who were in the midst of
an affair. Should we ban heterosexual marriage then, because heterosexual men
are having affairs? You should talk to one of your LDS Bishops and ask the
simple question, "approximately how often do you have to deal with
infidelity in your calling"? You will be stunned, STUNNED, at how often
they have to deal with infidelity.

But, I'm with you. Anybody
who has been unfaithful to their significant other/spouse should NEVER be
allowed to re-marry. How does that work for you?

Well said. What this debate really boils down to
is validation. Same-sex supporters are asking that the government and the rest
of society validate their choices and feelings. A law like Proposition 22 or a
state constitutional amendment like Proposition 8 do not prevent ANYTHING in the
bedrooms of same-sex couples.

So what is it that same-sex couples
want? They say equality. There's equality of federal tax benefits, which
I think is a legitimate concern. But equality in the sense that "my
marriage is the same as yours" -- not so much. You cannot force people to
swallow their morals and accept same-sex marriage as valid -- people
fundamentally disagree with the practice.

Don't come looking for
validation of your marriage from me. I have no problem with equality in the
sense of tax, housing, healthcare, etc. benefits. But you cannot require me to
validate your marriage in the sense that it is morally acceptable, because I
don't believe it is.

Legal gay partnerships actually appear to break up at roughly HALF the rate of
straight partnerships, from the data we have so far.

"In the
states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples ...ranges
from 0% to 1.8% annually, or ***1.1% on average***, whereas 2% of married
different-sex couples divorce annually." -- from "Patterns of
Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States",
published in 2011 by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

If
you oppose promiscuity, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage
ENCOURAGES monogamous, stable relationships.

Gay couples are ALREADY
raising hundreds of thousands of children, with or without marriage. Attempting
to deny marriage to gays won't change that.

If children are
important to you, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages
stable families, and that is GOOD for children.

Of course they do. The tide is rolling their way. Now that the
definition of marriage is being redefined to two people who love each other
regardless of their gender, why not broaden the definition to be even more
inclusive? Why stop at two people? What so magical about that number? There
are many situations where children are being raised in homes with one dad and a
few moms. Society has marginalized these families as well and shamed their
children. They have been incarcerated for loving and marrying who they love.
Where are their civil rights? The man loves all the women and they love him.
Isn't that the new requirement for marriage? - love only. Marriage is about
what the adults want, and if what they want isn't sanctioned by society
then shame on society for oppressing them and their children!

Society draws a line somewhere, or nowhere. Since gender doesn't matter
any more, why should the number of adults?

On so many levels marriage
between one man and one woman makes the most sense, still.

Those are good points. It's not as linear of an
argument as you're portraying it (i.e. kids do better with 2 parents, ergo
same-sex marriages = heterosexual marriages). Some people believe gay marriage
is not the ideal environment for raising kids -- certainly the factual studies
and science behind those claims have yet to be seen, but from a religious
standpoint I think people have some basis. Regardless, that's an ancillary
argument for opposing gay marriage (at least in my mind).

Just out of
curiosity, what is your religious affiliation (if you have one)? I actually
really enjoy discussing the various points of view through these comments, even
though nothing I say will persuade anyone else to change their mind, and vice
versa.

4. we don't invalidate straight marriages based on their success or
failure at raising kids, so we have no right to invalidate gay marriages based
on that same argument.

"what is your religious
affiliation"

None of your business.

Anything I say
will be "used against me in a court of law" -- so I don't plan to
disclose that info.

I'll go so far as to say that: 1. I have
been a regularish attendee in two different Christian denominations over the
course of my life; and 2. my closest religious affiliation will actually be
pretty obvious if you pay enough attention to my posts. :-)

1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens.
Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal
freedoms.-- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which easily
reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though
they've had gay marriage for years now.

2. adult incest (adult
siblings, adult parent/children) -- illegal in every state because of public
safety concerns. Not only is there the question of undue influence/coercion
amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is
very high (roughly 30-40%). -- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent
court cases, in both state and Federal courts, which have very clearly and
uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings DON'T apply to incest.

3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are
incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage
contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It
can't be removed.

4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't**
convey any special risk to public safety.

The courts easily
distinguish between these different practices -- even if you can't.

You spew out a bunch of questionable assertions with
your 4 point argument, but back none of it up with any valid statistics and/or
sources. Where does your information come from?

I've very seldom
been able to find any "experts" that claim kids grow up just fine with
gay parents, let alone any "wide expert agreement" contending such.
Since not enough gay couples (for statistical relevancy) have been raising
children long enough (less than a generation) to make any valid "expert"
assertions, your claims again seem very suspect. Most reports I've read say
that it's still too early to determine the extent or degree of negative
effects that may result from that particular arrangement.

As far as
whether amazondoc wants to discuss his/her religion, that's his/her
business, not yours. The question wasn't posed to you, so why stick your
nose in it by answering for someone else? Maybe amazondoc doesn't figure it
is anyone else's business, but let the person who was posed the question do
the answering.

To "Contrarius" go back and read the court case, and become informed on
polygamy. The canadian case that you cite only states that the FLDS culture is
bad, it does not say that polygamy is bad. In doing some reasearch about what
women think about polygamy and the benefits, I found that many women would
welcome it since it would give them a chance to have more adult help around the
house.

Actually gays do pose a risk to public safety. According to
National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, up to 45% of
lesbians are abused by their partners. In comparison, only 11% of women in
heterosexual relationships report abuse. The fact that in the gay community
there is so much more abuse than in the straight community should bother you and
your ilk. Why promote a lifestyle that tends to be so abusive?

"You spew out a bunch of questionable assertions with
your 4 point argument, but back none of it up with any valid statistics and/or
sources."

We only get 200 words per post, sorry!

"Where does your information come from?"

You'll have
to be more specific.

"I've very seldom been able to find any
'experts' that claim kids grow up just fine with gay parents"

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family
Physicians, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric
Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the
National Association of Social Workers ALL support gay marriage -- because they
agree that kids grow up fine with gay parents.

From the position
statement of AAP: "There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review
of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by
gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to
children of heterosexual parents" and "Marriage strengthens families and
benefits child development".

From the APA: "...children
raised by same-sex couples have been shown to be on par with the children of
opposite-sex couples in their psychological adjustment, cognitive abilities and
social functioning."